5. Acceptance and renunciation Flashcards
Cedric died intestate survived by his wife Felicia, their children Keira, Stuart, and Vern, and Vern’s son Xavier. At the time of his death, Cedric owned the following property: (1) his undivided one-half share of the community property that he shared with his wife, Felicia; (2) a tract of undeveloped Timberland that is his classified as Cedric’s separate property. Assume that a few weeks before Cedric died, Keira wrote a letter to her mother stating that she was angry with Cedric and she “renounced” her right to any inheritance she might receive from him when he died. Now that Cedric has in fact died, Keira regrets her harsh words and does not want to be left out of the estate entirely. Instead, she wants to renounce her right to the community property, but to keep her rights in the undeveloped Timberland. Which of the following statements is correct?
Question 1Answer
a. Keira has no rights in the succession because she executed a valid renunciation of those rights in the letter she wrote to her mother.
b. Keira may not accept her rights in the Timberland and renounce her rights in the community property because successors may not pick and choose among succession rights but instead must accept all rights or renounce all rights.
c. Keira may renounce her rights in the community property and accept her rights in the Timberland because a successor may renounce some succession rights and accept others.
c. Keira may renounce her rights in the community property and accept her rights in the Timberland because a successor may renounce some succession rights and accept others.
Same facts as the preceding question. Assume now that Keira never renounced any of her rights in Cedric’s estate. Assume instead that after Cedric died, Vern executed a written Act of Renunciation in which he explicitly stated “I hereby renounce all rights in the Succession of Cedric, my father.” The Act of Renunciation was signed by him but was not executed before a notary or any witnesses. Which of the following statements regarding this state of affairs is correct?
Question 2Answer
a. Vern’s succession rights in both the Timberland and the community property accrete to his own son, Xavier, through quasi-representation.
b. Vern’s succession rights in the Timberland accrete to his own son, Xavier, but Vern’s succession rights in the community property accrete to Felicia.
c. Vern’s attempted renunciation is absolutely null because it was not made in the form of an authentic act.
a. Vern’s succession rights in both the Timberland and the community property accrete to his own son, Xavier, through quasi-representation.
Same facts as the preceding question. Assume now that after Cedric died, Stuart filed a Petition for Possession of the Estate of Cedric in which he alleged that he was one of Cedric’s heirs. Before the court rendered a judgment of possession placing all of the heirs in possession of the estate, Vern found a valid last will and testament in Cedric’s desk drawer. The will stated that Vern wished for his wife, Felicia, to receive the usufruct of his share of the community property and for his three children - Keira, Stuart, and Vern - to each receive a 1/3 share of the community property in naked ownership. The will also stated that his three children - Keira, Stuart, and Vern - should each receive a 1/3 share of the Timberland in full ownership. Vern had the will probated by the court. Stuart would now like to renounce his rights in his father’s estate. Which of the following statements is correct?
Question 3Answer
a. Stuart may not renounce his rights in his father’s estate because he already accepted them when he filed the Petition for Possession and an acceptance or renunciation of succession rights is irrevocable.
b. Stuart may renounce his rights in his father’s estate because he never accepted those rights in the first place.
c. Stuart may not renounce his rights in his father’s estate because the will distributes the property in exactly the same manner as the law of intestacy.
d. Stuart may renounce his rights in his father’s estate despite the fact that he previously formally accepted those rights through the filing of a petition for possession because in an intestate succession, an acceptance or renunciation is null if a testament is subsequently probated, as occurred here.
d. Stuart may renounce his rights in his father’s estate despite the fact that he previously formally accepted those rights through the filing of a petition for possession because in an intestate succession, an acceptance or renunciation is null if a testament is subsequently probated, as occurred here.
Same facts as the previous question. Assume that no one renounced Cedric’s estate and that the estate will be distributed as directed in the last will and testament. Which of the following statements regarding Felicia’s usufruct is accurate? To answer this question, assume that none of Cedric’s children is properly classified as a “forced heir.” (Note: this question tests material from Module 2.)
Question 4Answer
a. Felicia is not obligated to post any security for the usufruct.
b. The usufruct will terminate at the earlier of Felicia’s death or her remarriage.
c. Felicia has the right to dispose of nonconsumables that are subject to her usufruct.
a. Felicia is not obligated to post any security for the usufruct.
Adele died survived by her siblings: Peter, Edward, and Marie. Peter had two children of his own, Farrah and Horace. After Adele died, Peter expressly renounced his right to Adele’s estate “in favor of Marie” in a written Act of Renunciation. Within one year after the renunciation, Peter died. His children, Farrah and Horace, are Peter’s forced heirs. Which of the following is correct under current law?
Question 5Answer
a. This attempted renunciation is an absolute nullity because successors are not permitted to direct accretion to anyone other than the persons who would receive it by operation of law.
b. Farrah and Horace may include the value of the inheritance rights that Peter renounced in the calculation of the active mass of the Peter’s estate, which determines Peter and Horace’s “forced portion.”
c. Peter’s renunciation was not valid, and was in fact an acceptance by which Peter did not divest himself of the inheritance rights at all, because it was not made in the form of an authentic act.
b. Farrah and Horace may include the value of the inheritance rights that Peter renounced in the calculation of the active mass of the Peter’s estate, which determines Peter and Horace’s “forced portion.”
Louisiana Civil Code article 967 provides in part that “[a] creditor of the successor may, with judicial authorization, accept succession rights in the successor’s name if the successor has renounced them in whole or in part to the prejudice of his creditor’s rights.” Although not specifically required by the letter of article 967, Louisiana courts have required that creditors seeking rights under this article to —
Question 6Select one:
a. Prove that the successor failed to give the creditor notice of the renunciation.
b. Prove prejudice by clear and convincing evidence.
c. Prove that the successor’s renunciation was made in bad faith.
d. Prove that in renouncing his interest, the successor failed to act as a prudent administrator of his debts.
e. Prove that the renunciation was a product of fraud on the part of the successor and that the renunciation caused or increased the successor’s insolvency.
e. Prove that the renunciation was a product of fraud on the part of the successor and that the renunciation caused or increased the successor’s insolvency.
Which of the following is not a liberative prescriptive period that bars the right of an heir to assert rights in succession property?
Question 7Answer
a. A five-year prescription on the probate of a will, commencing on the date of the judicial opening of the succession.
b. A prescriptive period on a successor’s right to demand partition of the estate against a successor who has “possessed separately” the whole or a part of the estate uninterrupted for thirty years.
c. A thirty-year prescription on the right to accept or renounce a succession.
d. A two-year prescription on an action by an unrecognized successor against a third person who has acquired an interest in an immovable from a recognized successor by onerous title.
c. A thirty-year prescription on the right to accept or renounce a succession.
Ass. 9 = bar exam questions
Bar exam
Graded quiz 2 not available
not A
